Manabrau's Blog Manabrau.WordPress.com – the religious should not read these blogs, they *will* be offended

i’ve heard it often said that “the victor writes history in their favour” or something like that …

yet it seems that we are too arrogant to think that the history we know is wrong

often history is written with the facts of events presented accurately – but people are too stupid to ask what happened because of these events…

“oh look Helen, look what the bad guys did back in the bad old days”.. that’s how history is presented, it’s presented as a shiny object, all the dull rusty sharp edges are smoothed over..

people need to ask *why* did these things happen in the first place …

have you ever seen two kids fighting and the big kid has stomped the little kid, and because the little kid gets a broken bloody nose, ie. the little kid was hurt the worst, so nobody stops to ask what the little kid did.. they just think the big kid was being a meanie, coz the big kid, has been known to be a meanie in the past…

now the big kid maintains that his attack was perfectly justified, but no-one wants to hear why any more, because the little kid has cried so much and was so hurt and so mutilated and so humiliated, that *everyone* instantly picks on the big kid, and ridicules him and makes jokes and mocks him but …

still …

nobody asked the big kid why he broke the little kid’s nose by giving him a good punch, and eventually the tale of the little kid being punched by the big kid becomes so large, that no gives a rats arse about why the big kid did what he did, it would ruin the story.

why ruin the truth, with those pesky other points of view

but eventually some people do ask, well kind of, they have to read the history books about the event, because it’s too late now, as the big kid has long since died, and these curious people ask the question…

“Why did the big kid hit the little kid?”

and it turns out that somebody did have a different take on the “history” of that event, as it is rumoured that the little kid had taken the big kid’s money, in fact, the little kid, had taken the big kid’s entire family’s fortune, they were broke.

But often when you ask why and what happened, the little kids start asking you why you are being pro-big kid?…. they even have laws put in place, to protect the little kids from the big kids.

I’m not saying that the big kid did the right thing, far from it, but nobody saw what the little kid did, so a useful perspective on the events is often reduced to rumours, so all we see, is the seemingly over the top display of big kid retaliation.

But in my experience, the measure of the retaliation is usually in some sort of proportion to the initial event that caused the apparently over the top reaction.

just say, all the little kids had been taking money from the big kids for decades, and the big kids have just stood back and let the little kids look after the money they took. But each blow has a wearing down effect on the big kids and eventually, the big kids were scrambling to eat, to clothe and house their families…

in fact the whole big kid country is now in economic down turn, because the little kids have all the money

then one day…

a little kid, tries to take the big kids money again, and the big kid says NO! THAT’S ENOUGH….

and then the little kids get upset, but they have so much money now, that they can screw over the big kids, by getting all the little kids all over the world to pick on the big kids, in fact they are so rich now, they can hire other big kids to pick on the initial big kids, on their behalf.

President Barack Obama launched an extraordinary attack on the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying a ruling on corporate donations to political campaigns this week “strikes at democracy itself.”

Obama’s broadside was triggered by a 5-4 ruling by the court’s justices on Thursday that removed long-standing campaign finance limits and allowed corporations to spend freely in campaigns for president and Congress. In the ruling, the court’s conservative majority said the limits had violated corporations’ constitutional right to free speech.